Enjoyable

Rating: 8/10 (2 July 2003)

"Possible Mild Spoilers Ahead: Proceed with caution."

I just saw this film. After greatly liking Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead," I was expecting a slight twist on zombies, from what I had read in reviews and so forth. And that's what I got. Quite scary, rather tense, and greatly atmospheric, the movie, filmed on digital video, succeeds in packing a punch. However, it was this same filming that irritated me. Unlike the calm, almost peaceful directing of "Rosemary's Baby," "28 Days Later..." insists on constantly flashing images at us. So quick and fast, it plays almost like an MTV music video. It greatly bothered me, unlike "Lola Rennt," which used the same technique masterfully. Nevertheless, I still greatly enjoyed it. Being a fan of horror films, I wasn't disappointed. The girl with whom I saw it didn't particularly care for the ending. But, I ask, how else can a zombie horror film end? The other endings they filmed are also possible, with Jim dying and so forth, but the best way, in my opinion, is to leave it to the audience to imagine them being rescued. In conclusion, it's not the best horror or zombie flick, but does add a new dimension to zombies. However, this was slightly offset by the directing, which irritated me constantly. In purely technical terms, I would give this a 7 out of 10, but with my bias toward this genre, my final score is 8 out of 10.
P.S. Why the male nudity? And so much of it. Is that something British?
Oh, well.